JUDGMENT : R.R. Prasad, J. 1. This Matrimonial Appeal filed u/s 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 is directed against the order dated 10.5.2016 and decree dated 16.5.2016 passed by the Family Court, Manipur in Mat. (Decl) Suit No. 40 of 2014 whereby and where under the marriage in between the plaintiff-respondent and the defendant-appellant held on 17.2.2014 was annulled by the decree of nullity. 2. The defendant-respondent brought a Matrimonial Suit being Mat. (Decl) No. 40 of 2014 against the plaintiff-appellant for annulling the marriage solemnised in between the defendant and plaintiff on 17.2.2014 by a decree of nullity by making out a case that the marriage is in contravention of the condition specified in sub-section (ii) (c) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act on account of the fact that the wife (defendant-appellant) was having recurrent attack of insanity. 3. Since the issue involved in this case is as such which does not warrant case of the plaintiff-respondent as made out, be narrated in detail. It would suffice to state that the plaintiff-appellant sought marriage solemnised in between the plaintiff and the defendant annulled on the ground that before and after the marriage, she has been suffering from mental illness and is having recurrent attack of insanity. 4. Upon institution of the suit, notice was issued to the wife-defendant appellant. The summon, as per the record, was served upon one Lilabati, sister in-law, as per the report of the Process Server, when the defendant-appellant was not found to be present in home. The said service of summon upon the wife-defendant was accepted to be valid and thereby the Court proceed with the matter ex-parte when wife-defendant failed to appear in the case whereby the plaintiff adduced evidences. On closure of the case, the Family Court upon finding the case, made out of defendant having recurrent attack of insanity being proved, declared the marriage as annulled by a decree of nullity. The order and decree annulling the marriage in between the plaintiff and the defendant as nullity is under challenge. 5. Mr. On closure of the case, the Family Court upon finding the case, made out of defendant having recurrent attack of insanity being proved, declared the marriage as annulled by a decree of nullity. The order and decree annulling the marriage in between the plaintiff and the defendant as nullity is under challenge. 5. Mr. N. Mahendra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, by referring to the provisions of Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 89 and order XXXIIA of the CPC as well as Section 9 of the Family Court Act, submits that duty has been cast upon the Family Court to make endeavour to have settlement in between the parties in a matrimonial dispute and thereby it becomes quite onerous on the part of the Family Court to satisfy fully that the summon has been served when party failed to put appearance pursuant to summon issued to him/her. In the instant case, the Court seems to have had casual approach in accepting the service report as without ascertaining the relationship in between the person who received the summon on behalf of the defendant and the fact whether she was living in the house together or that whether the person received summon was an adult member accepted the service report and proceeded with the ex-parte hearing and then passed the order and decree for annulment of the marriage and thereby it committed wrong. 6. Learned counsel, in this regard, further highlighted that service report shows that summon was served upon one Lilabati when the defendant was not found in home and said Lilabati is said to be the sister-in-law of the defendant but the defendant does not have any sister in-law named as Lilabati. In such event, any acceptance of service of notice and proceeding with the ex-parte hearing was quite erroneous whereby it has resulted into miscarriage of justice and hence the impugned order and decree is fit to be set aside. 7. As against this Mr. Th. In such event, any acceptance of service of notice and proceeding with the ex-parte hearing was quite erroneous whereby it has resulted into miscarriage of justice and hence the impugned order and decree is fit to be set aside. 7. As against this Mr. Th. Mahira, learned counsel for the defendant submits that it is wrong on the part of the Process Server to record Lilabati as sister in-law of the defendant rather Lilabati residing in the same house happens to be the younger sister of the defendant and thereby the court rightly accepted the service of summon and proceeded with the ex-parte hearing when the defendant failed to put appearance in the court and in that event impugned order and decree can never be said to be illegal, erroneous or without jurisdiction and hence it never warrants to be interfered with. 8. It be stated that the procedure of the matrimonial suit in comparison to other suit appears to be somewhat different whereby approach of a court of law in matrimonial matter is supposed to be much more constructive, affirmative and productive rather than abstract, theoretical or doctrinaire Matrimonial matters are required to be considered by court with human angle and sensitivity as delicate issue affecting conjugal relationship which need to be handled carefully and legal provisions should be construed and interpreted without being oblivious or unmindful of human weaknesses. Probably, this aspect has been kept in view by the Legislature in enacting sub-section 2 of Section 23 of the Act by requiring a court to make all efforts to bring about reconciliation between the parties. Instead of referring only sub-section 2 of Section 23 the other provision of sub-section 1 of Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 also requires to be mentioned as it needs certain clarification. The aforesaid provisions, i.e. sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 23 read as follows: "23. Decree in proceedings - (1) In any proceeding under this Act, whether defended or not, if the court is satisfied that:- (a) any of the grounds for granting relief exists and the petitioner [except in cases where the relief is sought by him on the ground specified in sub-clause (a) sub-clause (c) of clause (ii) of section 5] is not in any way taking advantage of his or her own wrong or disability for the purpose of such relief. (b) where the ground of the petition is the ground specified in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 13, the petitioner has not in any manner been accessory to or connived at or condoned the act or acts complained of, or where the ground of the petition is cruelty the petitioner has not in any manner condoned the cruelty. (bb) when a divorce is sought on the ground of mutual consent, such consent has not been obtained by force, fraud or undue influence. (c) the petition (not being a petition presented under section 11) is not presented or prosecuted in collusion with the respondent. (d) there has not been any unnecessary or improper delay in instituting the proceeding. (e) there is no other legal ground why relief should not be granted, then and in such a case, but not otherwise, the court shall decree such relief accordingly. (2) Before proceeding to grant any relief under this Act, it shall be the duty of the court in the first instance, in every case where it is possible so to do consistently with the nature and circumstances of the case, to make every endeavour to bring about a reconciliation between the parties: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to any proceeding wherein relief is sought on any of the grounds specified in clause (ii), clause (iii), clause (iv), clause (v) or clause (vi) or clause (vii) of sub-section (1) of section 13." 9. In context of sub-section 1 of section 23 of the Act, it be recorded that the conciliation is mandatory only in respect of 3 grounds under the Hindu Marriage Act namely-adultery, cruelty and desertion which are enumerated under section 13(1) (i), (ia) and (ib). But after commencement of the Family Court Act,1984 conciliation has been made mandatory in all sorts of matrimonial disputes as the Family Court Act,1984 has a overriding effect over all other laws notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in such laws. The relevant provisions, section 20, of the Family Court Act reads as follows:- "20. But after commencement of the Family Court Act,1984 conciliation has been made mandatory in all sorts of matrimonial disputes as the Family Court Act,1984 has a overriding effect over all other laws notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in such laws. The relevant provisions, section 20, of the Family Court Act reads as follows:- "20. Act to have overriding effect - The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act." In such event, the Family Court is bound to make endeavour for conciliation and settlement in all sorts of matrimonial dispute. That is conceptual change brought out by the Family Court Act. The aforesaid proposition has been laid down by the Kerala High Court in a case of Bini vs. Sunderan K.V. AIR 2008 Kerala 84. 10. Likewise, by CPC (Amendment Act 1976) a new order XXXIIA has been inserted to deal with certain suit and proceedings concerning family court. Rule 3 of Order XXXIVA cast a duty on the court to make efforts for settlement. The said rule 3 of Order XXXIVA of CPC reads as under: "R.3. Duty of Court to make efforts for settlement:- (1) In very suit or proceeding to which this Order applies, an endeavour shall be made by the Court in the first instance, where it is possible to do so consistent with the nature and circumstances of the case, assist the parties in arriving a settlement in respect of the subject matter of the suit. (2) If, in any such suit or proceeding, at any stage it appears to the Court that there is a reasonable possibility of a settlement between the parties, the Court may adjourn the proceeding for such period as it thinks fit to enable attempts to be made to effect such a settlement. (3) The power conferred by sub-rule (2) shall be in addition to, and not derogation of, any other power of the Court to adjourn proceedings." 11. Again, section 89 has been inserted in the Code of CPC Amendment Act 1999 with a view to implement 129th reports of the Law Commission of India and to make conciliation scheme effective. (3) The power conferred by sub-rule (2) shall be in addition to, and not derogation of, any other power of the Court to adjourn proceedings." 11. Again, section 89 has been inserted in the Code of CPC Amendment Act 1999 with a view to implement 129th reports of the Law Commission of India and to make conciliation scheme effective. By virtue of the said provision, it has now become obligatory for the court to refer the dispute for settlement either by way of arbitration, conciliation, mediation, judicial settlement or through Lok Adalat. It is only after the parties failed to get their disputes settled through anyone of the alternative dispute resolution mechanism, the court shall proceeding with the hearing of the suit. 12. Keeping in view the provision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also the other Hon'ble High Courts have been pleased to hold that it has now become obligatory on the part of the court to make endeavour to have settlement of the matrimonial disputes before it proceeds with the hearing of the matter on merit. In this regard, following decisions have been referred to on behalf of the appellant: (i) Jagraj Singh vs. Birpal Kaur, AIR 2007 SC 2083 (ii) Smt. Hina Singh vs. Satya Kumar Singh, AIR 2007 Jharkhand 34 (iii) Raj Kishore Mishra vs. Smt. Meena Mishra AIR 1995 Allahabad 70 13. Under the circumstances stated above, when the Court is now duty bound to make endeavour to have settlement in matrimonial dispute , it has become more onerous on the part of the court particularly in matrimonial dispute in accepting the service report when parties fail to put appearance upon issuance of summon. Only after being fully satisfied particularly in matrimonial matter that summon has been effected in terms of the relevant provisions relating to service of summon as enshrined under Civil Court Rules and Order of Gauhati High Court, one should accept service of the notice as valid service. In the instant case, we, on examination of the record, do find that the summon has never been served upon the defendant rather it was served upon one Lilabati reported by the Process server to be the sister in-law though as per the counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff, she happens to be younger sister of the defendant but the process server has failed to mention that said Lilabati was an adult Member. In absence of that court, in terms of Rule 66 of the aforesaid Rules, should not have accepted the service of summon as valid service. That apart, summon by the process server does not seem to have been effected properly as it was never served in presence of witnesses though in terms of Rule 64 (1) of the said rule, process server was required to effect service of summon in presence of two independent witnesses. 14. In such event, we are constrained to say that the Court committed illegality in accepting the service of summon upon the defendant as valid service and thereby committed wrong in proceeding with ex-parte hearing and then passing order and decree which in the circumstances stated above warrants to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside. Consequently, matter is remitted back to Court concerned where the defendant appellant would put appearance immediately so that court may proceed with the hearing of the case in accordance with law. Accordingly, appeal stands allowed. Records be transmitted to the court concerned immediately.